/lit/ - Literature

>Why is is respectable
You should read more books and spend less time on the internet or watching TV.

>>1217508
> he points out a typo and goes HUR DUR YOU'RE AN ILLITERATE PUKE

You're board isn't looking good, ./lit/.

>>1217511
*Your
Sorry about that.

>>1217511
>he uses "hur dur" on a literature board

>>1217512
i lol'd

but really, watching something that's good is respectable

>>1217505

Television: Fiction books require more imaginitive effort to engage with than television, while non-fiction books provide much more detail than television documentaries.

Internet: Time spent online can easily become fragmented and lost in petty distractions instead of building to an artistic conclusion the way a book does.

I don't necessarily believe either of those things, but I think some people might.

>>1217508

Everybody makes mistakes, that's why books have editors.

I don't know. But reading is considered universally a good way to spend time, especially books that are considered useful. Being online and watching television doesn't really contribute anything to one's knowledge for the most part, unless one reads online or watches programs that are informative in nature.

I also don't know, but that's the philosophy I've imbibed. Instead of purchasing vintage video games I just sought to read more books. It makes me feel better, too.

Literature has a longer tradition, thus it has more classics have survived.

>>1217517
Well, I mean, I generally do watch what I would consider good shows (Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Battlestar Galactica, etc) but every so o

but really, watching something that's good is respectableften my friends who jerkoff to books say I should stop rotting my brain and read. I read about a book or two a month and they look down on me for preferring television, while everyone who doesn't read always says, "I should really read more."

>>1217527
According to that logic, years from now we will respect those who watch a lot of television, and I just can't see that happening.

Because spending time online and watching TV is popular. There's nothing respectable about going with the crowd these days. The only way to gain respect through use of your free time is to listen to obscure music and read books, and the books better not be popular either, unless we're talking classically popular and difficult to read.

Television and the internet require no effort and your brain isn't stimulated at all, while reading takes quite a bit of effort to comprehend everything, and your brain is very stimulated, not to mention the effects on your vocabulary reading provides

Because reading requires you to actually use your imagination. TV is visual and doesn't really make you think, at least not in the same way. A book forces you to think of things on your own.

>>1217530
Fuck, sorry about that. I just got this laptop and I'm not used to the trackpad yet.

>>1217540
Well, in my experience, people who don't read don't care what other people read. Someone can be reading Kevin J Anderson's/Brian Herbert's Dune sequels and non-readers will assume he/she is intelligent.

The relative ease of publishing a book compared to a film or television show makes for a much wider range of voices and subjects.

Ongoing series tend to be written to order (often by committee) to fill a certain number of episodes. There's always a soap-opera feel and a focus on interpersonal relationships that I start to find a little boring. Maybe writers with big publishers have to fill a number of pages too, but they have a lot more freedom in how they go about doing it.

For some: literature is a superior art form.
For others: You read more, you write better, and that helps in life.

>>1217542
>>1217553
I suppose you guys are right.

Thanks /lit/, you've answered my question.

There's nothing inherently more valuable about reading books as opposed to watching TV or using the Internet. The thing is, most of the that's on TV all the time is pretty worthless. Similarly, most time spent on the Internet is pretty much time wasted - there's nothing constructive done. I think there's an assumption that anyone who spends a lot of time reading is going to be reading things that are good, and is therefore more valuable than time essentially wasted on disposable TV or pointless Internet. I think that's a fairly valid assumption. When we think that it's respectable to spend a lot of time reading books, we're not really talking about people who are tearing through airport romances or low-quality pulp genre stuff. We usually mean people reading things a level above that. And I think that is a pretty respectable thing to do.

I honestly watch TV about three hours the entire week. I do spend a lot more time on the Internet, but I never forget to read books in the process. I may not be the guy who reads one novel a day (though I did that in the past for a whole week), but I never try to forget that I'm a work in progress and need to keep reading.

>>1217581

I'd argue that even reading trash is inherently better, for the simple fact that it's a more "active", and less passive activity. You accomplish something definite that takes a bit more of an attention span.

Because, while all three mediums contain their fair share of garbage, reading at least provides some degree of mental stimulation. It doesn't take much thought to sit down and watch Gray's Anatomy, and while it's possible that you're reading an interesting article from a science journal while you're online, it's more likely that you're either looking at porn or diddling on Facebook, both of which are equally mindless activities. So people generally see reading as a more worthwhile activity, even if it's something stupid like Twilight.